From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2239C7EE25 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 22:50:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232204AbjFIWt7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2023 18:49:59 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50318 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232321AbjFIWtz (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2023 18:49:55 -0400 Received: from mail-yb1-xb29.google.com (mail-yb1-xb29.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b29]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A9EB1BD for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 15:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb29.google.com with SMTP id 3f1490d57ef6-bacf685150cso2092266276.3 for ; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 15:49:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20221208; t=1686350993; x=1688942993; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=I7LcE7DmhrKMXXWImGgQOysWtlJyoq2oM0rOKEdtOQ4=; b=xQzU3QbeUFY9kXkPMqupSx1mbwmp8HY7Gjsko+d4ljRkOYSFYYoBCKiqBD+K0e64x7 OQKiO89c4ipJHDAp6BE5z5tRd0+y1i6PoWloWqG5zLtk156WXfNOmAeGSS16gnVeaXZi HCUJc1bb7RwdbySv7XPzUiRwmBl0GNX4R25V/qa+CwwsZDp8JYozPrPjRgs090O+QfgS 3LiL3RU5gg97idhpJl7UGwKAl5oyho2VWzaM+Vi5v69BH8bMNabbhTlVxvQzI00rtFZ0 WWzkcOrOZlDH3SqDLxNRZWOGAMdxjG4yJv4eG0r9HwINBwc+4KFunp/Q9sH5ufhdsY2y 6S1Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686350993; x=1688942993; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=I7LcE7DmhrKMXXWImGgQOysWtlJyoq2oM0rOKEdtOQ4=; b=X+BSXHJOllZONbiu6lPOBPvv22ia0V6B6uQSa8Gj+dnz/HCTnoe+ZcFFa+MSTUQfea lv8B7WyS3r8hxrQ/Cz7y6slEpywAsQGeYAxfziTfkkYqRPXBQ61ANYkTy/bDy7j3fgdG sZmyvizKZKon5TDaLxMiQuv9RCzaMhpCJ1/9odkhT69WA33ytFoamMvLlxZ4vXe0rgJa ChocS0UX72Xlg/y1LEpAtvms6RC6l2YqJ9C/vqKYxnKDb9qa4lOMbP3wkum+c/CW160D SgyQ1rRwLJDnaPp5LW9L4pRWoH0E0ffvPggHVdj8/mTjQdvIOFY+LXCMAuly41iH0LQY xa+A== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwUpGrtwdZUtHWBRJ2JesHXniivqaMy24TUYQfRlaH9iYlfoL6m C5U95noex84Qp51p/h+g1GG2y23NUg+kK5YZ73xh2Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6mmiRZ0jv2+d2Uu570QrMziKru6AqEYGX+uEv01g69PSZikjPuqX5se+lF0xNb+xWQlic2XbN4m8dMSmAaOaQ= X-Received: by 2002:a25:df10:0:b0:bac:b478:d215 with SMTP id w16-20020a25df10000000b00bacb478d215mr2433487ybg.9.1686350993473; Fri, 09 Jun 2023 15:49:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230609005158.2421285-1-surenb@google.com> <20230609005158.2421285-6-surenb@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Suren Baghdasaryan Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 15:49:42 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] mm: implement folio wait under VMA lock To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@suse.com, josef@toxicpanda.com, jack@suse.cz, ldufour@linux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@fr.ibm.com, michel@lespinasse.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, jglisse@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz, minchan@google.com, dave@stgolabs.net, punit.agrawal@bytedance.com, lstoakes@gmail.com, hdanton@sina.com, apopple@nvidia.com, peterx@redhat.com, ying.huang@intel.com, david@redhat.com, yuzhao@google.com, dhowells@redhat.com, hughd@google.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 12:37=E2=80=AFPM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 11:55:29AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > Oh, after rereading I think you are suggesting to replace > > folio_lock_or_retry()/__folio_lock_or_retry() with > > folio_lock_fault()/__folio_lock_fault(), not to add them. Is that > > right? > > Right. It only has two callers. And I'd do that before adding the > FAULT_VMA_LOCK handling to it. Got it. Will make the changes. Thanks folks for the review!